The rapper’s lawyers claimed that “inflammatory” statements to the press were threatening his right to a fair trial, but the judge said he could not issue such an “extreme” order.
Sean “Diddy” Combs at Howard University on Oct. 20, 2023 in Washington, DC.
Shareif Ziyadat/Getty Images
The federal judge overseeing Sean “Diddy” Combs’ racketeering and sex trafficking case has denied his request for a gag order against his victims and their lawyers, ruling the demand “unprecedented” and “unwarranted.”
Attorneys for the embattled rapper claimed last month that “inflammatory extrajudicial statements” from victims and their attorneys were hurting his chances of a fair trial, but Judge Arun Subramanian ruled Friday (Nov. 8) that such “an extreme remedy” would threaten free speech.
“The court has an affirmative constitutional duty to ensure that Combs receives a fair trial,” the judge wrote. “But this essential … requirement must be balanced with the protections the First Amendment affords to those claiming to be Combs’s victims.”
“The unprecedented relief that Combs seeks on this motion is unwarranted,” the judge added.
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But in September, he was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what they say was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” If convicted on all the charges, he faces a potential sentence of life in prison.
Last month, following the latest wave of civil abuse lawsuits against Combs, his lawyer asked Judge Subramanian to issue a sweeping gag order, claiming the lawyers behind the civil cases had made “shockingly prejudicial and false allegations” about him.
“Mr. Combs has a constitutional right to a fair trial, free from the influence of prejudicial statements in the press,” his attorney Marc Agnifilo wrote in the Oct. 20 motion. “These prospective witnesses and their lawyers have made numerous inflammatory extrajudicial statements aimed at assassinating Mr. Combs’s character in the press.”
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Subramanian ruled that the order Combs was seeking was “incredibly broad” and would have “sweeping First Amendment implications.”
“Not all alleged victims will be participants in this case, and a blanket restriction on their speech will silence individuals who may never have anything to do with the proceedings here,” the judge wrote.
The judge said he had “already taken steps to limit what can be said publicly” about the case and was “open to other tailored proposals that will help ensure a fair trial.” He also said Combs could take specific actions in the various civil lawsuits he was facing if the lawyers in those cases misbehave. But he said he could not do anything close to what Combs was seeking.
“A gag order … is an extreme remedy to be issued only as a last resort,” the judge wrote. “What Combs seeks goes even further.”
Separately on Friday, Combs’ lawyers also renewed their request that he be released from jail on a $50 million bond while he awaits trial. That request has been repeatedly denied since Combs was arrested, but the new filing cited the fact that former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries — another high-profile defendant accused of sex trafficking in New York — was immediately released on a $10 million bond after he was arrested last month.
“The government recently successfully requested pretrial release for two similarly situated defendants, including a CEO accused of sex trafficking dozens of young men, including through witness intimidation,” Agnifilo wrote in the new motion. “The conditions of release requested in Jeffries pale in comparison to the conditions proposed by Mr. Combs here.”
More From Pro
